Appeal 2007-0099
Application 10/260,443
(Br. 11) that Koppel's teeth in one array are laterally offset from the teeth in
the other array. Thus, there is no gap between the tine arrays, wherein each
tine of the first array is in facing relation to a corresponding tine in the other
array. Further, Appellant continues (Br. 12) that the spacing disclosed by
Koppel and referenced by the Examiner is the lateral spacing between the
tines, not the spacing between the arrays.
Again we agree with Appellant. The gap disclosed by Koppel for
removing nits refers to the spacing between adjacent teeth, not the gap
between two arrays of teeth. We also note that the gap disclosed by Koppel,
0.004-0.01 inches, converts to 0.1-0.25 millimeters, not 1-2 millimeters, as
claimed. In other words, Koppel fails to disclose the claim limitation of a
gap between the tine arrays of about 1 to 2 millimeters. In addition, Koppel
fails to cure the deficiency of Ford noted supra. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 13, 15, and 21 through 23 over
Ford in view of Koppel.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013